About your Search

20140226
20140306
STATION
CNNW 8
MSNBCW 3
CSPAN 1
KGO (ABC) 1
KNTV (NBC) 1
WRC (NBC) 1
LANGUAGE
English 18
Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18 (some duplicates have been removed)
. and if not because religion is a protected group there could be a reo religious claim brought against them. gay people are not protected from any kind of discrimination by the religious print. >> in that analogy, the gay group is not a religious group so if this law passed they couldn't argue on religious grounds that they wouldn't print up this stuff for the west borough baptist church. >> exactly right. what's really striking about this, nobody except for at the very end i thought it was really telling he used the example of gay people. nobody is willing either tonight or in your prior interviews to say the word "gay" in defending bill. an entire interview they tap danced around the word "gay." if you go to yarbrough, he was up front about saying the situation in new mexico where a photographer was forced to take photographs of same sex couples commitment ceremony or wedding. >> she was sued because she wouldn't in new mexico which violates the state statutes in new mexico protecting discrimination against people based on sexual orientation. but you're right. early on a lot of lawmakers were
across the country. here's the meat of 1062 in arizona. "exercise of religion means the practice of or observance of religion, including the ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief." here is hb 376 in ohio. "exercise of religion means the practice or observance of religion. it includes but is not limited to the ability to act or the refusal to act in a manner that is substantially motivated by one's sincerely held religious belief, whether or not it's central to a larger system of larger belief." it's almost identical language, and that's no accident. sb 1062 and hb 376 and legislation in other states all share the same legal genetic code traceable back to a number of christian conservative special interest groups in the case of 1062, an outfit called the center for arizona policy, another called the alliance defending freedom didn't just push for the bill they also helped write for the bill much that's what representatives from both organ
does. >> in arizona, unlike other states, while there are protections based on rarks religion -- race, religion, national origin, there's none on sexual orientation. so already a business can say, "i don't serve gays", this is deflated. does it grant protection for gays or businesses to go ahead and discriminate. i think what it has done is shined the light on the fact that arizona is a state that does not offer protection for gays. folks rallied around that saying "why not?" >> how has it hurt the state? >> arizona had a history of problems, whether it's pr problems or not. after the governor of arizona cancelled a holiday for reverent mart mart martin luther king, a lot pulled out. if it does not change the laws, it underscores the question of does arizona think of itself as a friendly state. does it see itself as a place welcoming to everyone. for a company like apple. apple decided to build a plant here with 1200 employees. they are a gay-friendly company. they may think "do we want to located a plant where some. our employees may not feel welcome" >> what does it say about the st
for that in religion. we're talking about marriages, about those ceremonies that really when you participate in them as described in the package about being artistic, you're affirming of something that runs counter to your religious beliefs. >> you're saying i can't ban -- i have the bill in front of me two pages for me saying you can do this if the person's refusal to act is moat have aed by religious belief. you're saying to me if i'm -- someone could ban me from coming in if i was married to another woman but not if i was simply a lesbian and not married to the woman? it's gay marriage that's your problem? >> that is -- it sets in place this has to be a religious belief that is deeply held and you can't just come up and create a religion. you can't come up and say, i'm not going to serve somebody this food and that would be inconsistent with a christian world view. christians want to serve people. where the issue is, and this is what happened in new mexico, what drove this was that you had a christian photography if i company that was sued for not photographing a same sex wedding ceremony. that's
to see again that religion was used to veil discrimination. it was just really a disappointing piece of legislation that it even came forward at all, and that in 2014 we're evening discussing this time of policy. i saw you on lawrence o'donnell's show last night, and you said you normally don't make public reference to your sexuality, but you had to take a strong stand, given what was happens in your home state. >> you know, i think sometimes you have to stand up and speak for what's right. when a bill like this moves through the political process, you know, whether it was discriminating against the lbgt community or another minority group, it's important to stand up and speak for what's right and speak from the heart. if my story helped illuminate that or provided insight to the other members of the house of representatives, to the type of impact it would have on individuals, then i hope that it helped. >> it's interesting, many decisions we have seen in our country have been made through the motivations of money, whether you person was afraid they would lose money or could stand to
's exercise of religion without showing compelling government interest. the orange states are states that if passed rfra-like provisions by court decision. you can see that in the wall street journal if you want to learn more about that. we are skipping with our colors. renÉe is waiting in california. good morning. caller: i wanted to correct one thing here. iticus that talks about man laying down with man. you guys get the views from the homosexual side but you also need to get the other side here. i don't believe in same-sex marriage. i hate the fact that people always want to compare homosexuality with racial. that has nothing to do with it. it is a lifestyle that they choose. i am an a store and christian, i should not be forced to make a cake for two women or two men. that is my right. the thing about it is, god will in the end.al say his were never changes. it is all the same. it was a sin before and it's a sin now. god does not hate the sinner, he hates the sin. you worry about the example of the wedding cake. that example also brought up in today's washington post in their l
exercise of religion, sincerely held religious beliefs. >> opponents of the bill claimed victory for an open attack on gays. >> this showed the nation that not all arizonians are like extremists, and that there are good people, and we want to lead the country forward, not backwards. >> a statement was issued, praising her decision. >> major corporations weighed in too. apple, american airlines, delta and the n.f.l. all urged governor jan brewer to veto the measure. >> it was a combination. business community and activist. >> it sent a message to the governor. >> and speaking of the business community, supporters of the bill have been saying that there is a lot of support by local businesses. one of our producers here made several calls, 50 businesses, dry cleaners, hair salons, and could not find a local business behind it. >> thank you. we should point out the veto of the bill in arizona does not end the debate open over religious freedom nationwide. it got further, being a signature away from the governor to become war. similar balls failed to pass in kansas, idaho, south dakot
because of their religion so she didn't think the bill made accepts. your organization release add statement today that read "this legislation would give homosexuals more protection than they did under the current law". given nobody could come up with example of the discrimination, how could they have more protection under a law essentially created to allow people who didn't want to serve gays getting married with things like photography or wedding cakes? >> well, the irony is that arizona does not currently have sexual orientation listed as a protected category in either their employment nondiscrimination laws or public accommodation laws. so the current state of the law in arizona is that anybody can discriminate against gays at any time for any reason or for no reason whatsoever. this bill deals only with when a government action conflicts with a person's sincerely held religious belief. it requires the person asserting that right to be able to prove that this is motivated by the religious belief, that that belief is sincerely held, and that the government action is a substantia
under state law in arizona. race, gender and religion are but being gay is not. it wasn't protected before brewer vetoed the bill and it still isn't protected after the veto. the waiting photographer refused to fake pick kpurs of the gay couple and she was sued for it. the bill she vetoed was an effort to protect against the legal challenges that could result from discrimination. even with this bill gone there is no law on arizona's books that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. at least 12 states this year has issued legislation like arizona to extend the tide. senator mike lee of utah, conservative republican has introduced the marriage and religious freedom act. as they scramble topaz these laws, though, the courts seem to be moving in the opposite direction, even when it comes to red state america. just this week a federal judge ordered officials in the state of kentucky to start recognizing the marriage of same-sex couples that were performed outside of the state. and in texas, federal judge struck down that state's ban on same-sex marriage ruling that the cur
that called virginia's ban on gay passenger unconstitutional. a pal just released by the public religion institute, it finds a majority of americans, 53 appearance, now support gay marriage. that same survey put support at only 32 appearance just 10 years ago. >>> there are new developments from ukraine tonight. the u.s. is once again crashing with russian president vladimir put putin, secretary of state kerry warning vladimir putin to be careful after he ordered military drills near the ukrainian border. >> reporter: the russian defense minister may have denied there's any connection between president putin's sudden military order today and events unfolding in ukraine. all one really needs to do is take a look at a russian-ukrainian border where these complex war games will be playing out the next six days or so and see how close it is to ukraine's flash points, like the pro russian eastern ukraine, just to understand what might be called vladimir putin's unspoken message, something like don't push me in my own backyard. still, for several days now we've seen one russian official after
allowed business owners to refuse to serve gays by citing their religion beliefs. here is what the governor said just minutes ago. >> after weighing all the arguments i have vetoed senate bill 1062 moments ago. to the supporters of this legislation i want you to know that i understand that long held norms about marriage and family are being challenged as never before. our society is undergoing many dramatic changes. however, i sincerely believe that senate bill 1062 has the potential to create more problems than it purports to solve. i could divide in arizona in ways we could never imagine and no one would ever want. religious liberty is a core, american and arizona value. so is nondiscrimination. going forward, let's turn the ugliness of the debate over senate bill 1062 into a renewed search for greater respect and understanding among all arizonans and americans. >> many people owned this bill because -- opposed this bill because they believe it provided political will to discriminate. brian rooney explains. >> protest was loud, where the legislature once again they said made
provides that, quote, government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion explicitly expanding that protection to allow businesses to cite a violation of their own religious beliefs as a defense if they're sued for failing to provide service. the bill was inspired by a new mexico supreme court ruling against a wedding photographer who refused service to a same-sex couple, and it massed quickly through the very conservative-controlled state legislature in arizona last week. in the last few days, pressure on brewer to veto the bill has grown from almost every corner. the arizona story crossed the threshold from political feeding frenzy into the mainstream. it was showing up on every platform yesterday, from espn to late-night talk shows. and though brewer claimed she was not influenced by cheers and boos from the crowd, it was clear from the outset that her state, whose reputation has already been tarnished over the years in the wake of the state's 2010 immigration law, had a lot to lose. on wednesday, the nfl, quote, began investigating the necessary steps to move next
businesses to turn away gay customers. in the name of religion. >> arizona governor jan brewer is under intense pressure to veto, tweeting overnight that she will do the right thing for the state. more now from abc's cecilia vega. >> outrage at the state capitol. as governor jan brewer faces a decision, does she sign into law a bill in the name of religious freedom to refuse to serve gay people or veto it. but companies are pouncing, saying the law would create an unfriendly climate that's bad for business. joining the chorus, marriott hotels. tech giant, apple. which has plans to open a 2,000 job high-tech plant in the state. and american airlines. whose ceo wrote, this bill send the wrong message. mitt romney chimed in urging a veto. even the nfl weighs in. with next year's super bowl set to be played in arizona, the league says it supports tolerance and inclusiveness. >> it is discrimination couched behind the belief that i can hide behind my religious beliefs. >> the opposition has been loud, but you from the backers of this bill so far we are hearing silence. we tried to find busin
of religion are in the first amendment to the united states constitution. >> yes, they are. >> when should they take a state? this law in arizona you have to prove as a businessman you were being burdened in your religious exercise. it didn't give the right of people to just say, i discriminated based on my faith. you had 11 republicans and democrats, harvard law professors and others saying this has been mischaracterized. >> you didn't need the law because there is no special protection. i want to move off that point to the point you just made. substantial burden to my faith. how is it a substantial burden to your faith to take photos of a gay wedding if you are a catholic? >> i think if people say, listen, i don't want to sanction polygamy or gay marriage or anything other than traditional marriage, we need to respect that. if you don't like it, shop around. it's not hard for gays to find somebody who is going to take a picture of them is there? >> how is it a substantial burden to your catholic faith to do that? where in your faith does it say that doing that is very wrong? >> you know
's religion in canada. >> also people should know, the movie is coming out in spanish and korean at the same time. >> in america. >> in america. >> did you just shoot -- do you shoot a lot more? roma, you star in this movie. you're terrific as mary. did you guys shoot a lot more scenes out there? >> we did. we knew when we were shooting "the bible" series that the jesus narrative began to unfold that we had something spectacular, and jesus hasn't been on the big screen for 10 years. 50 years since this was told. we shot additional footage. we put the movie together and this friday it opens in 3,000 theaters across the country. >> wow. look at you. >> roma just told me an amazing thing. tell me about abe foxman with the jewish -- >> we have worked across denominations and reaching out to the jewish community through abe foxman at the ado to make sure we told this movie sensitively setting a political and historic context. >> right. >> presenting the story in a way that really just emphasized the love of jesus, and mr. foxman gave us a great endorsement from the ado. >> that's terrific. >> a f
relationship with ukraine, good diplomatic and economic religions. >> john kerry, i assume he was, if he's in washington, he was at the white house for this so-called meeting. we saw general martin dempsey, chuck hagel, james clapper, where's kerry? >> he is, we don't know where he is right now, but clearly, he has a very close relationship with sergey la the russian foreign minister. you've seen some talk about the russians possibly calling their ambassador back to moscow, but that's not really where the business between the u.s. and russia is done. it's done between capitals, the white house, between the kremlin and secretary kerry and lavrov. secretary kerry has had some positive effects with his relationship with lavrov. they put together those peace talks in geneva. we have on the syrian crisis, we haven't seen a lot of progress, but they are determined to work together and this is i think you should look for kerry to get much more involved. >> we know the vice president, joe biden, has been deeply involved in this crisis as well. stand by. i want to go to moscow right now. fred is
Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)